Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, as Members of Congress, we are not here just to vote, but to speak; to give voice on this floor to the aspirations of our constituents, so this place where we speak, the Well of the House, is very special to me.

When I was a freshman Congressman in 1987, I delivered my first remarks from this podium. Twelve years later, on January 6, 1999, when I was first sworn in as Speaker, I made my acceptance speech from here as well. I explained at the time that I was breaking the tradition of the Speaker by making my acceptance remarks not from the Speaker's chair, because my legislative home is here on the floor, with you, and so is my heart.

Well, my heart is still here, and always will be. But the Bible reminds us in the book of Ecclesiastes, ``To everything there is a season; a time for every purpose under heaven.'' I think that pretty much sums up our existence in this place.

So now, after 21 years serving the people of Illinois in this House, the time has come for me to make my last speech from this podium. Our Founding Fathers envisioned a citizen legislature, and it is time for this legislator to return to being a private citizen.

Madam Speaker, when I was reelected as Speaker of this House in January of 2003, I was able to congratulate you on being the first woman to be nominated as Speaker. Just four short years later, you surpassed that achievement and became the first woman elected as Speaker. And I have to admit that as we went into that 2006 election, I was hoping that you would put off that achievement just a little bit longer. I think all of us in this House, regardless of party or our affiliation, were proud to be serving when that glass ceiling was shattered.

I would also like to thank you, Madam Speaker, for the many courtesies that you have shown me as a former Speaker of this House during the past year, including the opportunity to formally say good- bye to all of my colleagues here today.

I will get myself into trouble if I start singling out Members in these remarks. I owe so much to so many of you; for your friendship, for the many things you have taught me, and for your support during some very difficult days, such as the aftermath of 9/11 when I became a wartime Speaker.

But I would be remiss if I did not extend a heartfelt ``thank you'' to my colleagues and former colleagues in the Illinois congressional delegation and my freshman class of 1986. We have accomplished much working together.

I also want to thank my leader, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) and his fellow Republican leaders, who head a vibrant minority, the largest Republican minority since 1955, a minority that is demonstrating to the country that it should, and I think will, lead this House yet again some day.

I also want to thank the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, the dean of this House, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) who for four times administered to me the Oath of Office as Speaker. You, Chairman Dingell, and our Republican leader on the committee, Mr. Barton, welcomed me home to the committee. I have enjoyed working this past year as we have tried to tackle some of the most important issues that face our Nation, such as energy security, health care and telecommunications, and for that I thank both of you gentlemen.

More than 25 years ago when I entered politics, I never envisioned that this former teacher and wrestling coach from Kendall County, Illinois, would have the opportunity to lead the United States House of Representatives. It was you, the Members of this House, who gave me that opportunity longer than any other member of my party in history, and I am grateful to you.

Becoming Speaker was a very humbling experience, an opportunity that only 51 men and one woman have ever had since 1789. I suspect that sitting here in this Chamber are several men and women who will some day have the honor to be Speaker of this House. But whether that honor comes your way or not, you are already the trustee of one of the most wonderful jobs that anyone wanting to serve their country can have. You are a Member of the United States House of Representatives, entrusted by more than 700,000 people, citizens, to represent them.

Eleven times the voters of the 14th District of Illinois hired me as their representative. It has been a journey that we have traveled together, and every year brought new challenges. I am proud of so many of the things that I was able to work on over those years, working to make health care more affordable and accessible by creating tax-free Health Savings Accounts; delivering on long-awaited prescription drug coverage for seniors, while at the same time modernizing Medicare for the 21st century; passing two of the largest tax relief packages for working Americans in our Nation's history, which encouraged Americans to invest and small businesses to grow and to create new jobs; and reducing the unfair Social Security earnings limit on our senior citizens that needed to work.

Back home in Illinois, I was proud to work on environmental issues, like the removal of the dangerous thorium tailings from West Chicago, Illinois, and preserving the vital drinking water supply of the people of the Fox Valley.

But ultimately, the most important responsibility for any of us that serve this House is to provide for the defense of our Nation. It is our most solemn obligation.

On September 11, 2001, I became a wartime Speaker, and together we became a wartime Congress. On that dark day, our Congress was united. We were not Republicans or Democrats; we were just Americans. We stood shoulder to shoulder on the steps of this Capitol and vowed to do whatever was necessary.

In the following days and weeks and months, President Bush, Leader Gephardt and I worked together. We tried to bind the wounds of those victimized by the attacks, and then made sure that it would never happen again. We demanded that our intelligence agencies do a better job of sharing information. We gave law enforcement more effective tools and resources to guard

against attack. And we made an unprecedented investment in homeland security.

Did we get it all right? Of course not. Only hindsight is 20/20. But through those efforts, and the grace of God, we have avoided additional attacks on American soil. There is no doubt in my mind that the American people are safer today because of the heroic actions of our men and women who serve in our armed services and intelligence agencies and because of the actions taken here by our Congress.

It is popular these days to ask political figures what mistakes they have made, where they have failed. As a former history teacher, I know such analysis is best tempered by time and reflection, and that is probably best left to others.

But I will say this: I continue to worry about the breakdown of civility in our political discourse. I tried my best, but I wish I had been more successful. When I addressed this Chamber for the first time as your Speaker, I noted that ``solutions to problems cannot be found in a pool of bitterness.'' Those words are as true today as they were then.

We each have a responsibility to be passionate about our beliefs. That is healthy government. But we also have a responsibility to be civil, to be open-minded, and to be fair; to listen to one another; to work in good faith to find solutions to the challenges facing this Nation.

That is why the American people sent us here. They did not send us here just to get reelected.

As Speaker, I served with two Presidents. President Clinton and I worked together to fight the flow of drugs from Colombia, drugs that destroy the lives of our children. And despite our differences on some issues, we were able to find common ground on others.

For most of my years as Speaker, President Bush has been our wartime President. I believe history will judge him as a man of courage and foresight as well as resolve. I must say, I was proud to serve by his side and honored to call him a friend.

No Member of Congress could succeed in serving his or her constituents without the help of a dedicated staff. They often worked long hours, hard days. Many of them gave some of their most productive years to this institution, and I want to thank all of them and each of them for their service. And I also want to thank all of the people who make and have made this great body function on a daily base: the officers of the House, the Capitol Police, the Chaplain, the permanent staff. They are dedicated professionals who I came to appreciate even more during my years as Speaker.

I am also blessed to have a family that helped me every day over these 21 years. My two sons, Josh and Ethan, my daughter-in-law, Heidi, and our newest addition, my grandson, Jack Hastert. Most importantly, I want to thank my wife, Jean, who is here in the gallery. Thank you, Jean, for the love and the help you have given me.

In 2003, during the Cannon Centenary Conference on the Changing Nature of the Speakership, I said that at the end of the day the Speaker of the House is really just the person who stands up for the American people. That is the same role that every man and woman who serves here should play. Our Founders dreamed of a Nation, a Nation empowered by freedom, where citizens would find justice, where hardworking men and women would find economic opportunity.

Each of us who comes to this place has different ideas of how to preserve and enhance that dream. It is on the floor of this House where those ideas clash, peacefully, and through that struggle our democracy is renewed.

Never lose sight of the fact that you participate in the greatest ongoing democratic ritual in the world. We are, as President Reagan often reminded us, ``A Shining City on a Hill.'' Always be mindful of your duties to your constituents and be respectful of the traditions of this institution.

I pray that God will guide you in all that you do in these Halls; that He gives you the knowledge to do the people's work, the strength to persevere, and the wisdom to know when to listen to what others have to say.

Madam Speaker, there is a tradition among Olympic wrestlers that you leave your shoes on the mat after your last match. Don't be alarmed, Madam Speaker, I won't be challenging the rules of decorum by removing my shoes on the House floor. But I do hope that I have left a few footprints behind that may be of value to those who come after me, just as I have benefited from the footprints of those who I followed to this most wonderful of institutions, the people's House.

May God bless each of you. May God bless this House. May God bless the United States of America.

Good-bye, friends.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to say thank you to Geraldine R. Gennet who is resigning as House Counsel, after serving in that office for more than 12 years.

When I was Speaker, it was my privilege to oversee the institutional offices which help make the U.S. House of Representatives function on a daily basis. The house counsel, like the Parliamentarian, legislative counsel, and other institutional offices, serve the House behind the scenes but are essential to its operations. All these offices are non- partisan, and that tradition is important to maintain, so that no matter which party controls the House, its operations are viewed as professional and non-partisan.

Geraldine Gennet certainly carried on that tradition. She and her office gave the Speaker's office and the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group advice that reflected the precedents and practices of those that went before us, but also the appropriate legal advice to address today's issues and problems. It was not legal advice calculated to advance a political goal or agenda. Rather, Geraldine's advice reflected her unbiased reading of the law and her best legal judgment. When the House's institutional interests were at stake, her advice was designed to further those institutional interests and protect the legislative branch's central place in our constitutional structure as envisioned by the Founding Fathers.

Geraldine and her staff were particularly helpful in the aftermath of the FBI's unprecedented raid on a congressional office last year. She was instrumental in negotiating with the executive branch in an effort to resolve the constitutional stand-off amicably. When those negotiations ultimately failed, she then assisted the House leadership in charting its course through the litigation that followed. We particularly relied on Geraldine and her office for advice on significant institutional issues of this nature, and they always did an excellent job. This House owes Geraldine and her staff a debt of gratitude.

I wish Geraldine well in her future endeavors and thank her for her service to the U.S. House of Representatives.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the late William W. Wirtz. Bill was a kind and charitable man, who generously gave back to the people of Illinois throughout his life.

Over 40 years, Bill was the President of the Chicago Blackhawks and chairman of the Wirtz Beverage Group, which operated in Illinois and the surrounding States.

Bill also served as chairman of the Board of Governors of the National Hockey League for 18 years and was responsible for negotiating the merger between the NHL and the World Hockey Association in the late 1970's as well as the expansion of the league. No one did more for hockey on both the professional and amateur levels than Bill. He served on both the 1980 and 1984 Winter Olympic Committees. For his efforts on both the professional and amateur levels, Bill was inducted into the Hockey Hall of Fame in 1976, was the recipient of the Lester Patrick Trophy in 1978 and was inducted into the U.S. Hockey Hall of Fame in 1985.

Under the guidance of Bill, Chicago Blackhawk Charities was established in 1993. Since that time, Blackhawk Charities has donated over $7.5 million to worthy causes in the Chicagoland area such as Boys and Girls Clubs, Cathedral Shelter, Miseracordia Homes, the Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago, the Chicago Blackhawk Alumni Association, and the Amateur Hockey Association of Illinois, AHAI. Bill also donated both the Chicago Stadium and the United Center to host the Blackhawk Cup, the annual High School Boys and Girls State Championship Game, over the past 20 years.

I would like to extend my most heartfelt condolences to Bill's wife Alice, his children Rocky, Gail, Karey, Peter and Alyson, and his seven grandchildren. Bill will always be remembered for his charity and goodwill towards the people of Chicago.

Mr. Speaker, I stand somewhat chagrined that we bring this bill to the floor of this great House, the floor that deliberates on the issues that take care of the needs of people, but this bill comes under a charade, a charade that we are going to help the poorest and most disadvantaged children.

The SCHIP program that we put in place 10 years ago started to do that, and we can't expand that, but this bill covers people up to four times of poverty. That is a family of four earning $82,000 a year.

What it does is say if you go out into the private sector and you continue to buy health care for you and your family, you're going to pay a tax, and that tax will fund other people, not just children, but expand the amount of adults covered by SCHIP, which is supposed to be for children.

In the State of Illinois, my State, 60 percent of the people on SCHIP are adults, not children; 40 percent are covered by children. If we want to cover children, let's change it so we cover children. This bill doesn't do that. This bill expands what we do for adults, adults that should be able to be paying their own way in American society.

What this bill does is open the doors for all other types of people to be able to be involved in government-paid health care, and that's the bottom line. It's government-paid health care. It's Hillary care all over again.

And what we do is take, at the cost of seniors who get Medicare Advantage, who get choices of their own health care plans, we take it away. We wipe it out, and we give it to people who are illegal aliens and aliens. And don't kid yourself, it's going to happen.

So, if we want to take health care on the backs and take it away from seniors and give it to people who haven't made their way in this country, who haven't got their citizenship, then this bill does it. It's a bad bill for a bad time, and it's coming under the false pretences of trying to do something for children.

Vote ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, it's unfortunate that today we are considering legislation which was rushed through the House without proper consideration in the Energy and Commerce Committee. There were no legislative hearings held by the Subcommittee or full committee on a bill that could cost taxpayers over $300 billion. That is simply unacceptable and the American people have the right to know what this bill is really about.

This Congress has the opportunity to correct flaws in SCHIP and bring spending in the program under control. Rather than return the focus back to our most vulnerable children, the CHAMP Act would greatly expand coverage.

First, it changes law to now define a child as someone as old as 21. It also expands coverage to more adults, and families with incomes upwards of 400 percent of the poverty line. This equates to an annual salary of over $82,000.

We are sending the message to families across the country--drop your children from your private insurance--the American taxpayer will foot the bill.

Furthermore, at a time when Americans look to Congress to secure our borders and enforce our existing immigration laws, the Democrat leadership, through the CHAMP Act, is taking leaps in the opposite direction by opening the door to free health insurance for illegal aliens.

It does so by removing language from the Deficit Reduction Act requiring proof of citizenship to receive SCHIP and Medicaid. This will make it nearly impossible for the Federal Government to prevent illegal immigrants from accessing these programs.

The American people are getting a clear message today from the new majority. They want your tax dollars to provide incentives to those who choose to break our laws and enter this country illegally.

And our Democrat colleagues would pay for this reckless expansion of SCHIP by cutting Medicare Advantage plans and significantly raising premiums on seniors.

Millions of seniors depend on Medicare Advantage plans to provide the benefits they need and services they can't otherwise get with traditional Medicare. Especially our seniors in rural and underserved communities. The CHAMP Act will immediately eliminate these enhanced benefits and choices so many have come to rely on.

Our Democrat friends are once again attempting to empower the Government to ration healthcare in this country. This will take choices out of every American's hands when it comes to their well-being and leaves the decisions to a government-run managed care system.

Instead, we should be encouraging the participation of private plans regardless if it is for children, families, or seniors. This creates competition in the marketplace, which we know lowers out-of-pocket costs while expanding benefits for the insured.

I believe, given the opportunity to properly debate and offer amendments, we could ensure coverage to our most vulnerable children in a fiscally responsible way without raising taxes and sacrificing Medicare services for our seniors. Unfortunately Republicans were denied that right today. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the CHAMP Act.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member, and I would like to ask the chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure if he would enter into a colloquy with me.

Mr. Chairman, I have been informed by the Illinois Department of Transportation that there may be some confusion regarding the intent of one of the Illinois projects included in SAFETEA-LU. Funding provided for project number 12 in section 1302(e) of SAFETEA-LU was intended to be for the construction of Route 34 in Illinois, including interchanges and other improvements.

The Federal Highway Administration has told the Illinois Department of Transportation that the language currently in SAFETEA-LU may restrict the scope of the project to only funding interchange improvements, when the intent of the language was also to fund other improvements along the Route 34 corridor.

As a result, I would like to clarify the intent of the language and work with the chairman and the ranking member to make sure that the language interpreted by the FHWA is done correctly in this manner.

I would be happy to yield.

Once again, I thank you and look forward to working with you and Mr. Mica on this matter.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage in a colloquy with Chairwoman Lowey and Ranking Member Wolf.

I thank the gentlelady and Ranking Member Wolf for working with me throughout this process on an important issue that I have worked on for many years and that's Plan Colombia.

As you know, Colombia is a critical U.S. ally in the region, and it's in our interest to cultivate this partnership to ensure that Colombia remains strong.

I sincerely appreciate the chairwoman's efforts to address my concerns about the overall cuts to the program, particularly given the constraints of the bill. However, I still have concerns about funding levels provided for the Colombian aviation programs, as well as some of the certification requirements contained in the bill.

Alternative livelihood, which the chairwoman is very interested in, and I am too, and other developmental projects are certainly vital to our overall effort in Colombia, but they can only be successful in areas where the Colombian Government maintains territorial control.

That being said, I would like to continue working with the chairwoman and ranking member to address some of these issues as we move forward to conference.

Madam Chairman, once again, I thank you and I look forward to working with you as the process continues.

If the gentlewoman would continue to yield. I too would just like to say thank you for your hard work, and I'm honored to continue to work with you on this issue. Thank you very much.

I thank the gentlelady from Miami.

Mr. Speaker, this is one of the great opportunities that comes along once in a lifetime, the chance to host the Olympics and Paralympic games.

You know, the Olympic movement is something that I have been a part of most of my life, as a wrestling coach, as an honorary vice president of the American Olympics Games, and as one who worked in the trenches over the years to help found USA Wrestling.

I have always said the Olympic movement is a bright light that brings people together through sports. The game celebrates the spirit of sportsmanship, a spread of a message of unity that inspire generations of children all over this world.

I had the honor and privilege of being at the Munich games and the Montreal games and the L.A. games. Chicago is a unique city. As the previous speaker said, it is the ``city of big shoulders.'' It is a city of the crossroads of our Nation, a city of great architecture, of great beauty and of great people. And it is the commitment of people coming together to say we can do this; the will to succeed, the will to be the hosts to the world and showcase what this country is all about, what our athletes are all about, what the American spirit is all about.

We will see the Olympics coming up in places like China, in Beijing, we will see the Olympics in London, but this is our one chance to bring the Olympics back to this country, to be the host of the world and saying folks, we believe in the Olympic movement, we believe in this great opportunity, but we will do the best in the world to make this happen and to make it a success.

I ask also, ladies and gentlemen, that it is understood that this is the work of a lot of people. I want to congratulate our Mayor Daley and all of the others, Pat Ryan and others, who led up that committee to make sure that they can tell the story to the U.S. Olympic Committee so they would get this.

I urge the adoption of this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, this is one of those opportunities that comes along once during a lifetime--the chance to host the Olympic and Paralympic Games.

The Olympic movement is something I have been a part of most of my life--as a wrestling coach, as Honorary Vice President of the American Olympic Movement, and as one who worked in the trenches to help fund USA Wrestling.

I have always said that the Olympic movement is a bright light that brings people together through sports. The Games celebrate the spirit of sportsmanship, spread a message of unity, and inspire generations of children all over the world.

For the athletes, it is the ultimate level of competition--the opportunity to test themselves against the best the world has to offer in their respective sports.

A Midwestern city has not hosted the games since St. Louis in 1904, so it's a great honor for Chicago to be selected to represent the United States in the competition for the 2016 games.

And in a bit of irony, Chicago was actually chosen as the host city in 1904, but it was later moved to St. Louis to coincide with the World's Fair.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot think of a more welcoming, diverse and inspirational place than Chicago and the State of Illinois to serve as host for the 2016 games.

Over 30 million foreign and domestic visitors come to Chicago every year. It's a city with a rich immigrant history, and we all know what a great sports town it can be. In fact, The Sporting News named Chicago as the best sports city in the United States for 2006.

I want to congratulate Mayor Daley on all his hard work and I look forward to working with him and my colleagues in the Illinois delegation and the Congress to make this bid a reality.

I strongly urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

I thank the chairman, and I rise today in strong opposition to 1591.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say to my friend from Wisconsin, I have a great deal of respect for the fights that he has fought on this floor for over 30 years, but we do disagree.

Supplemental spendings are intended to provide additional funding for programs and activities that are too urgent and pressing to wait for the regular appropriations process. To be clear, only emergency funds should be included in this supplemental. Period. So if Democrats are looking for an avenue to send money back to their districts, they should look to regular order.

Last year when the Senate tried to include over $14 billion in nonemergency funds in the supplemental, House Republicans demanded a clean bill. And when the House sat down with the other body to negotiate a final bill, we accepted nothing less than a supplemental free of unrelated and nonemergency funding.

Why did we do that? Because we wanted to pledge the faithful support of this Congress to the members of the armed services serving in harm's way. This legislation should remain focused on the needs of the troops and not become a vehicle for extraneous spending and policy proposals.

In yet another show of a different way, the same Members who screamed for a straight up or down vote on minimum wage legislation just 1 year ago are today trying to attach that legislation to a wartime supplemental. And the very Members who voted to reinstitute PAYGO rules just 2 months ago are here today casting fiscal responsibility to the wind.

This bill should be limited to necessary funding for our troops serving bravely in Iraq and around the world in the war on terror. I ask my honorable Democratic friends how the Democrats can on the one hand say they support our troops by providing them with money, but on the other undermine them by telegraphing a date for their withdrawal from Iraq.

Congress should under no circumstances micromanage the war and have politicians making decisions that should be left to our Commander in Chief and generals on the ground. Even The Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times, hardly supporters of this administration, have editorialized that this legislation oversteps the bounds of Congress and both support a Presidential veto of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation and think long and hard about its consequences. This bill is fiscally irresponsible; it holds our troops hostage to nonemergency

spending and policy proposals, and it signals to the insurgents and terrorists around the world a lack of American will to do what is necessary to win the war on terror.

Vote ``no'' on H.R. 1591.

I thank the Chairman.

Madam Chairman, just months ago, after voters went to the polls and elected myself and my colleagues through private ballot elections, Democrats today are attempting to strip that basic right to cast a private ballot from the American worker.

The right to vote in America, regardless of race, regardless of religion, regardless of gender, is a right that has been fiercely fought for and protected. The right to keep that vote private is fundamental to the success of any democracy.

The current system in place for union elections is fair. The NLRB has detailed procedures in place to ensure a fair election, free of fraud, where workers can cast their votes in private, without fear of coercion from business or labor.

A recent poll shows that almost nine in 10 voters agree that every worker should continue to have the right to a federally supervised secret ballot election when deciding whether or not to organize a union.

In 2000, we had the closest national election in our Nation's history. Many of my colleagues, particularly those on the other side of the aisle, demanded reforms to ensure to the greatest extent possible that every vote will be counted, and that to the greatest extent possible that every vote has the integrity of the ballot box. That election highlighted the needs for election reform, and we acted.

This House passed the Help America Vote Act to help ensure free and fair elections for years to come. We wanted to protect the confidence so that when every American goes to the ballot box, it will be secret, they won't be intimidated, and their ballot will be rightfully counted. However, today on this floor, the same people who pushed for voters' rights back then are now trying to abolish them. This bill will only erode the American public's confidence in the democratic process.

So why do labor unions want to fix a system that isn't broken? Because it tips the scales to their advantage and to disadvantage workers. How much did labor unions have to pay to pass this irresponsible bill through Congress? $60 million. For this, their reward is to silence the voice of American workers.

If Democrats were really concerned about the well-being of our labor force, they would instead work to protect workers against the violence that often erupts as a result of labor elections. Federal courts have held that some union activities are exempt from the Hobbs Act, including violence. As a result, incidents of violence, assaults have gone unpunished.

The so-called Employees Free Choice Act could increase violent, nonunion intimidating tactics. The bill would publicize workers' votes, and even further expose them to possibility of retaliation.

Democrats are trying to eliminate democracy in the workplace. This bill strips away a worker's voice and increases the likelihood that workers will be threatened and harassed.

Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote to protect and defend our workers. Support the McKeon substitute and vote ``no'' on H.R. 800.

Madam Speaker I would like to mark Karen L. Haas' last day as Clerk of the House with a word of personal thanks.

When I asked Karen to be Clerk in the fall of 2005 she wasn't sure she could do the job or even wanted it. I never doubted her talents and her ability to do the job, nor did anyone who knew her. Luckily for us, she agreed to my request, and the House wisely elected her to the position of Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives.

I knew Karen would bring intelligence and integrity to the position, and she has. She brought her perfectionist work ethics to the job, working the long hours even after the House had adjourned and everyone else had gone home. When there were difficulties to face, Karen did it with a level head, common sense, and the best interest of this institution as her guide.

Karen's love for this institution would permeate in everything she did in office and influenced those having the privilege to work beside her. My only regret is that her tenure was too short.

Before she was named as Clerk of the House, Karen ably served the Speaker's staff as a floor assistant. She made sure the right people were in the Speaker's chair each day and for every debate. She assisted me with our committee assignments and always had a ready answer for any question. Karen was also responsible for my appointments to boards and commissions, and she helped recruit some fine public servants to serve in those positions.

Before working in my office, she worked for my friend and mentor from Illinois, Bob Michel. She had good teachers there, and it was there that she developed the talents that would serve her and this House so well in the future.

I also want to thank Karen's family for sharing her with us. The night that she was elected Clerk, her family sat in the Speaker's gallery as she was sworn in. You could see in their faces how proud they were of their daughter, sister, wife and mother. Mark, her husband, and her children, Amanda and Brett, have sacrificed much in order that the House could benefit from Karen's talents. I want to acknowledge them and thank them as well for sharing with us one of the finest public servants I have ever known. Thank you, Karen, for a job well done.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the life of a former member of this House and one of my predecessors, Charlotte Thompson Reid, who passed away on January 25, 2007. For those of us from the Fox Valley who have since gone on to a life of public service, Charlotte Thompson Reid is an inspiration to us all and an example of how to serve the people you have been trusted to represent with the utmost integrity.

Known as the ``Grand Lady of Aurora, Illinois,'' and ``Charley'' to her friends, Charlotte accomplished great things for her hometown of Aurora and the surrounding area. Her sparkling personality and just plain Midwest-friendliness is renown throughout all of Chicago land.

As I have said before on the floor of this House, her service in Congress overlapped with the beginning of my teaching career in Yorkville, Illinois and her outstanding record helped inspire me to seek public office in the late 1970s. In fact, Charley's endorsement and work on my behalf helped me get elected in 1986 during my first and toughest race.

After raising her family of four, she worked side by side with her husband Frank as he ran for the House of Representatives in 1962. When Frank suddenly died, she was elected in his stead. She won re-election in four terms bringing her solid Midwestern values to this House. Charlotte went on to be appointed to the F.C.C. where she served with distinction until the mid-70s and was later appointed by President Reagan to serve on the Presidential Task Force on International Private Enterprise from 1985-1987.

To be sure, Charley's surviving children (Patricia, Susan, and Frank), eight grandchildren, and thirteen great-grandchildren, should be proud of the legacy she has left behind and carry her spirit for life with them in their journeys.

Madam Speaker, we are all indebted to Charlotte Thompson Reid for her energy, her gentle manner and what she meant for this country. I offer her family my sincere condolences during this difficult time and wish them the very best in the future.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Charles Curtis Johnson on his retirement from the United States Capitol Police. With devotion, professionalism, and expertise, from September 16, 1974, until his retirement on December 31, 2006, Sergeant Johnson, or ``CC'' as he is called by his friends, has fulfilled the mission of the United States Capitol Police to protect the Congress, its legislative processes, Members, employees, visitors, and facilities from crime, disruption, or terrorism. I would like to wish him and his family all the best as he embarks upon this new chapter of his life. He will be truly missed.

Sergeant Johnson was first assigned to the Capitol Division and served there as an officer for 14 years, performing various law enforcement duties and assisting Members of Congress, congressional staff, and the general public. In 1998, he was promoted to sergeant and, for 3 years, supervised officers in and around the House and Senate Chambers. In 1992, he was assigned to the First Responder Unit and supervised the officers assigned to the outside of the Capitol as well as serving as the administrative sergeant.

In 2004, Sergeant Johnson earned a post as one of the supervisors of the U.S. Capitol Police Horse Mounted Unit. In addition to undergoing the rigorous training and maintenance of skills required of all members of this elite unit, Sergeant Johnson also supervised and directed all operations of the unit, including maintaining the unit's budget and equipment procurement. With the loss of the unit in 2005, Sergeant Johnson moved to the Patrol/Mobile Response Division and used his considerable expertise and institutional knowledge to supervise and direct the patrol officers within the Capitol Police primary and extended jurisdictions. A tireless performer and distinguished law enforcement professional, Sergeant Johnson deserves the admiration of all who come into contact with him.

In addition to his commitment to the U.S. Capitol Police, Sergeant Johnson is the devoted husband of fellow USCP member Captain Shirley Jo Johnson, and the proud father of three daughters and one son: Angie, Becky, Rachael, and Daniel. He is also the proud ``Papa'' of three granddaughters and one grandson: Kiera, Sydney, Nate, and Kaylie. He is the proud father-in-law of Greg Lawrence.

In his upcoming retirement, Sergeant Johnson plans on spending plenty of time with his family and is especially looking forward to ``Grandbaby Day.'' Last, but certainly not least, he also plans to buy himself a horse so he can truly ride off into the sunset.

Thank you, Sergeant Johnson, for your exceptional service to the United States Capitol Police, the Congress, and the American people, and congratulations on achieving this important milestone.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 6 aims to punish Big Oil. In reality, the only people it punishes are the American people.

It is a fact that America is dependent upon foreign sources of oil. Six out of every 10 barrels of oil our Nation consumes come from foreign sources. This means that our Nation's energy security rests in the hands of the leaders of Iran, Venezuela, Algeria, Chad, Angola, Nigeria, and Russia. This state of affairs is unacceptable, and we must do all we can to change it.

The way we change the situation is straightforward, but not easy. We need

to be more efficient with the energy we use to fuel our economy, heat our homes, and run our cars. We need to increase the use of alternative and renewable fuels, like ethanol and soy diesel, wind energy and nuclear power. We need to deploy new technologies that will allow us to make clean and efficient use of our nearly inexhaustible supplies of coal, and we need to look forward to a new age where we can use the power derived from hydrogen-replaced fossil fuels.

I am pleased to say that on every one of these fronts, Congress has already acted. The Energy Policy Act of 2005, the first comprehensive energy bill in decades, provided significant incentives for renewable fuels, including the very successful and renewable fuel standard. It provided significant incentives for new nuclear power plants, energy- efficient buildings, solar and wind power, biomass and geothermal energy. It provides funding for FutureGen and other clean coal projects for research into the use of hydrogen and fuel cells. And it provides loan guarantees for projects employing carbon sequestration, coal gasification and coal-to-liquids technology.

This landmark legislation moved us toward where we will ultimately need to be, a country less dependent on uncertain foreign sources of energy.

I agree with many of my colleagues that we need to do more. We need to ensure that this country can deploy nuclear power plants, that we can provide the power investment climate whereby clean coal-to-liquid plants can be built. And we need to push the deployment of E-85 infrastructure.

Mr. Speaker, we need to do all these things and more, but we also need a vibrant and effective energy sector in this country. We need to produce and develop our own energy. We need to open ANWR. We need to make more of our offshore resources available for development, and we need additional investment in energy infrastructure. What we do not need, Mr. Speaker, is a tax increase on domestic energy exploration, production and development. We do not need to make American energy less competitive than energy produced overseas.

And make no mistake about it, increasing taxes on our Nation's energy industry means one thing: more reliance on foreign oil and gasoline. I had the honor of being in Soviet Union, Russia, last fall; met with Premier Putin. He spent 2\1/2\ hours talking about how Russia was going to combine and provide the energy for all of Europe and America if we wished to buy it.

Incidentally, he wanted our investment dollars, he wanted companies to invest there. Higher taxes means we have less investment here, less exploration here, development of resources here at home, and more development dependence on energy derived from foreign sources.

Mr. Speaker, we need to vote ``no'' on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 6 is shortsighted policy. Oil companies in recent years have made huge profits, no doubt about it. I, for one, have argued that they use these profits and re-invest them here in developing new energy projects and building new refineries.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle, however, want to punish such investment in America with new taxes. That is wrong, it is shortsighted and it won't work.

As the Wall Street Journal noted, this is an energy bill only OPEC Ministers could love.

Mr. Speaker, I agree with many of my colleagues that we should fix the Clinton Administrations mistake in not putting price thresholds in offshore leases granted to oil companies in 1998 and 1999.

I voted, along with many of you, to correct this mistake. But I do not agree with my Democrat colleagues that we should punish investment in our Nation's energy resources and infrastructure.

Far from punishing Big Oil we are only punishing ourselves. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, in 2003, for the first time in history, this Congress was able to pass historic legislation providing comprehensive prescription drug coverage under the Medicare program. When we debated this legislation we heard from our Democrat colleagues on how it won't work. It will be too complicated, confusing, frustrating for seniors and they will pay high premiums and deductibles for minimal benefits.

Then Part D went into effect. Again we only heard from the other side of the aisle with tales of unsatisfied seniors who had no help to guide them through the process.

Now just a little over a year after Medicare Part D was implemented we find ourselves talking about this program again. So let's talk about Part D Mr. Speaker. Let's talk about the 22.5 million seniors who just over a year ago had no prescription drug coverage. Let's talk about recent polls that show 80 percent of those covered say they are in fact satisfied with the program and the benefits they are receiving. And we know they are satisfied because they are spending far less money out of pocket. On average, seniors are paying less than half of what they were just a year earlier when they had no drug coverage at all, many are saving even more.

In fact Mr. Speaker, I recently received an email from a constituent of mine in Elgin, Illinois, Mr. Ted Whittington. Ted just wanted to thank the Congress for their leadership in providing the prescription drug plan because of what it meant for his family. See Ted's mother takes medication that cost them nearly $700 a month placing a great deal of financial strain on the family. When they enrolled her in Part D it immediately reduced those monthly costs to $170--cutting costs 70 percent. This is just one of the many success stories I have had the pleasure of hearing about from my constituents back home in Illinois.

Before us today is a bill that will take Medicare Part D in the wrong direction by removing the free-market tools which are keeping prices low. H.R. 4 would replace the free market with price controls. Price controls didn't work with gasoline in the 70s and isn't the answer for Part D. It won't help seniors. It won't help taxpayers.

In fact, CBO confirms price control mechanisms aren't practical for Part D. Just this week they reported to Congress once again that giving power of price control to the Secretary would have a negligible effect on lowering prices. Our Democrat colleagues know this, standing before this House time after time voting against the very price controls they seek to pave the way for today. They did so for one simple reason-- price controls do not work.

In nearly every way, H.R. 4 undermines the thriving Medicare Part D program that is helping millions of seniors. A price control system will limit the amount of drugs available to seniors while keeping them from being able to get their prescription filled when and where they want. And these changes would be far-reaching, increasing drug costs for veterans, slowing the course of new drugs available on the market, and diminishing the health and well being of those it seeks to help.

Mr. Speaker, my Democratic colleagues refuse to admit the truth to the American people--Medicare Part D is working. For seniors, Part D simply means affordability and access to their prescription drugs. From community pharmacies to mail order, seniors around the country get the prescriptions they need at prices they can afford. Instead of giving credit for a job well done and reaching across the aisle to build off the successes of this Republican-led program, the new House leadership would rather play politics and dismantle the Medicare Part D program.

Mr. Speaker I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 4 and let us get to work on solving problems--not creating new ones for the American people.

Mr. Speaker, our Government has no greater responsibility to the American people than national security. It is one of the few prescribed duties specifically outlined in both the preamble and body of the United States Constitution.

It has been over 5 years since the terrorist attacks of September 11 and America is safer and much more alert to the dangers that lurk in our world. Since 9/11, our military and our intelligence services have thwarted dozens of attacks. Their efforts have saved countless lives. These successes were possible because of the tools we armed them with through the passage of laws on the floor of this House.

Mere days after September 11, Republicans responded by approving the USA PATRIOT Act to address the ways in which American law enforcement agencies can combat terrorism. By making necessary changes such as modernizing wiretapping laws and allowing more information sharing between law enforcement agencies, we increased the likelihood of catching terrorists and punishing them accordingly. This law, which we recently reauthorized, has enabled the Federal Government to effectively deter and punish terrorist acts in the U.S. and around the world.

Following the release of the 9/11 Commission's report and recommendations. Members of the House and Senate met to discuss these issues. At times, our views differed significantly regarding the changes we believed were necessary, but, in the end, we were able to find common ground on many of these issues and did what was right for America.

This culminated in the passage of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act. This legislation provided the largest overhaul in the structure of the U.S. intelligence community since the creation of the CIA and incorporated most of the recommendations offered by the 9/11 Commission. Furthermore, this legislation allowed the intelligence community to focus its efforts on 21st century threats and was a tremendous step to further protecting the safety of the American people.

As we learned, access to timely and accurate information is critical to defeating terrorists and protecting our Nation from other threats. As such, the bill created the Office of the National Intelligence Director who acts as the unifying central point bringing together U.S. intelligence efforts. In addition, the bill addressed the loop-holes that existed in our national security structure by making improvements to law enforcement, defense intelligence, emergency preparedness, and border and aviation security.

The Intelligence Reform Act also addressed the issue of communications interoperability for first responders. The act required the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish a national strategy for public safety interoperability communications, and required the Secretary to establish two pilot projects to serve as national models. In addition, we passed subsequent legislation to establish an Office of Emergency Communications within the Department of Homeland Security.

Furthermore, we included provisions in the Deficit Reduction Act to plan for the release of radio frequency spectrum, and create a fund to receive spectrum auction proceeds. Among other things, the fund establishes a grant program of up to $1 billion for public safety agencies to deploy interoperable systems.

Nonetheless, we still had important border security and immigration provisions to be addressed. To that end, the House passed the REAL ID Act of 2005. A key 9/11 Commission recommendation, the REAL ID Act federally standardizes the requirements for applying and issuing State identification cards. According to the 9/11 Commission, the 19 hijackers responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attacks carried between them 13 valid drivers' licenses and 21 State-issued ID cards. The Commission recommended Congress establish Federal standards for sources of identification in order to target terrorist travel and better prevent another terrorist attack on American soil. This legislation addressed that.

And that's not all--over the past 5 years, this House has passed legislation to address maritime and port security, aviation security, and research and development of biomedical countermeasures to potential biological attacks.

As President John F. Kennedy once said, ``In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger.'' This is a responsibility we have never shied away from. America must continue to be vigilant and prepared for terrorist threats and attacks. And we will continue to work together to that end.